It’s not just a low blow. It’s lower than that. It’s a Facebook group.

Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”

I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.

There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholarships. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

She regarded it as restitution and opposed all forms of welfare statism. Problem?

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

“..According to AlterNet one Evva Joan Pryor, “who had been a social worker in New Yorker” said that “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory.” What job was that? Well, if you believe AlterNet she was “social worker” during this period. The implication being that Rand had to seek out a social worker to help her. Some smear-mongers of Rand have argued with me that she died penniless as the result of the evils of capitalism and that was why she sought out this social worker.

Pryor was NOT a social worker. She worked for the law firm of Ernst, Crane Gitlin & Winick which handled all legal matters for Rand. Nor was Rand penniless or in need. She was penniless when she arrived in America but during this period she had cash reserves of a few hundred thousand dollars and a steady income from book royalties.

Pryor argued with Rand because Ayn did not want Social Security, nor did Rand go out and seek it, or Medicare, even though doing so was entirely consistent with her own ethics. What Pryor said was that she tried to convince Rand to sign up and they argued. Pryor says Rand “was never involved other than to sign the power of attorney. I did the rest.” Beyond that Pryor said nothing else. There is no indication whether Pryor used the power of attorney to apply for benefits, or whether Rand knew about it. There is no indication that such benefits were ever used. There is simply no evidence to show Rand “Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them.”

Pryor’s full interview in 100 Voices: Oral History of Ayn Rand, indicates the opposite. It shows Rand fighting with her attorneys and telling them that she didn’t want to do this. She signed a power of attorney and Pryor said that she acted “whether [Ayn] agreed or not.” Pryor never actually says what actions she (Pryor) took in spite of whether Ayn “agreed or not.” What we have is the rabid Left jumping to numerous conclusions not warranted by the evidence.”…

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Search for:

Contributors

Blair: Orthodoxy.Adam: Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.Reed: TANJ There is now.Tim: Christianity, libertarianism, and keeping it real. Slaggin' socialists and bangin' atheist heads!Richard: An intoxicating mix of Jesus, freedom fighting and death metal. Slaggin' socialists and headbangin'!

Syndication

Feel free to copy any of our posts. All we ask is that you properly attribute the source by mentioning the name of this blog and the author of the post. Please add a link in the comments to the post you copy so we know.

Rules

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.